ECOMODERNISM
Lucía Ortiz de Zárate Alcarazo
Nature’s continuous and speedy deterioration has become an undeniable fact. A range of different philosophical and ideological trends have therefore focused their efforts on problematising this scenario, seeking solutions to ameliorate, slow down and ultimately eradicate its imminent consequences, not only for the human species but for every type of living being on Earth. Of all the trends seeking to remedy climate change, biodiversity loss, water acidification, etc., ecomodernism has probably generated the strongest support over the last decade.
Ecomodernism has successfully generated consensus regarding the measures required to address the climate crisis among self-perceived progressive and social democratic sectors, but also among liberals and even some conservatives. This has been possible because its central thesis holds that economic growth and technological development are not only compatible with defending and protecting nature, but in fact, can be their principal allies for solving this problem (Isenhour, 2016). Thus, ecomodernist proposals distance themselves from ecologist claims: whereas the latter usually find economic, industrial and technological growth -and capitalism itself- incompatible with protecting the environment, the former embrace sustainable development policies.
In recent years, ecomodernism has been disseminated through different media (political, academic, informative broadcasts, etc.), but its driver has been the Breakthrough Institute, which in 2015 published the “Ecomodernist Manifesto” (Breakthrough Institute, 2015). This publication expresses the philosophical and ideological assumptions underpinning this movement, whose main tenet is “dematerialisation” or “decoupling”. Its followers claim that “any significant improvement to our climate is fundamentally a technological challenge” that will require “radical decoupling from nature on behalf of human beings” (Breakthrough Institute, 2015).
The expectations placed in “decoupling” are associated with the energy efficiency gains that, in turn, are linked to technological development. In other words, ecomodernists share the idea that economic growth, industrial development and the implementation of certain technologies are responsible for the undeniable deterioration of our climate. At the same time, however, they believe that science and the development of digital and disruptive technologies will allow human beings to decouple economic growth from nature. Our economies will thus continue to grow, human beings to consume, and our societies to progress without causing further harm to the climate (Grunwald, 2018).
This would only be possible through digital technologies, which ecomodernists consider to be radically different from those dating from the first and second industrial revolutions, in the sense that the latter were highly pollutant. According to this view, the role of digital technologies in the struggle against climate change is twofold. Firstly, technological development and the creation of new, more powerful technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), is not only fundamental in correctly diagnosing the climate crisis, but is also essential in optimising initiatives, determining priority actions and advising how to distribute resources. Secondly, the energy efficiency gains generated by the use of such advanced technologies will allow the current rates of economic growth and technological development to be maintained without causing harm to the natural environment (Weizsäcker et al., 2009).
In this manner, ecomodernism sets itself aside from philosophical proposals, mainly of an ecologist slant, that criticise and seek to dismiss several modernist assumptions (Isenhour, 2016). By contrast, ecomodernism embraces the modern distinction that divides reality into nature and society, and that is normally attributed to the philosophy introduced by Descartes in the 17th century. Despite the subsequent emergence of other trends that problematize, criticise and in some cases eliminate many of the assumptions defended by Cartesian philosophy (Schaeffer, 2009), this view, that separates mankind and society from nature and other living beings, has become exacerbated to the point of positing humankind’s exceedance in favour of the post-human through fusion with and use of technology (Ferrando, 2013). Departing from this divide between the social and the natural, between human beings and all other living beings, ecomodernists claim that the emancipation of the former (human beings) with respect to the latter (all other living beings) is possible and desirable via technology. This dematerialisation, this definitive estrangement of human beings from nature, would be precisely the key to solving the ecological crisis (Breakthrough Institute, 2015).
Ecomodernism has received considerable criticism (Love & Isenhour, 2016). For many ecologist thinkers, ecomodernism is not only mistaken in its diagnosis of the ecological crisis and, hence, also in its proposed solutions, but is particularly harmful as it is underpinned by mistaken philosophical premises (Almazán, 2023). To these critics, the support received by ecomodernism does not relate to its merits, but rather to the fact that it rests on ideas that are comfortable and profitable to Western society, insofar as it maintains intact and in perfect order (and even strengthens) the links between unlimited economic growth, technological development and progress (White, 1956).
Critics of ecomodernism argue that, far from going deeper into the tenets of modernity, human beings should turn to acknowledging our dependence on all other living beings (non-human) and abandon previous (but still current) dichotomies between nature and society. These assumptions not only lead to philosophical consequences but also to political ones. Critics state that an improvement in energy efficiency is not enough to fight against climate deterioration in the long term. Although initially, in rich countries, energy efficiency has reduced energy consumption levels, this is completely insufficient given the consumption growth rate (Greening et al., 2000). This fact, known as the Jevons paradox, shows that, in societies where technologies are more efficient, energy consumption has not diminished as was expected, because the expectation of a decrease in energy consumption led to an increase in the use of technological products, thus cancelling any possible improvement regarding the environment (König et al., 2022).
Therefore, most ecologists stay clear of ecomodernist positions and their defence of unlimited growth (economic, industrial, technological, etc.), their commitment to green technologies (e.g.: Green AI), their techno-optimism and their re-assertion of modernity. As an alternative, many ecologists see the need to propose de-growth scenarios for the world’s leading economies, as well as social groups that consume the most, and seek to re-write the role of human beings in the interdependent fabric they belong to in connection with all other (non-human) living beings, thus doing away with their exceptionality status (Hickel, 2019).
Bibliography:
Almazán, A. (2023). A socio-historical ontology of technics: beyond technology. Environmental Values, 33, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/09632719231209742
Breakthrough Institute. (2015). An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Available from: https://thebreakthrough.org/manifesto/manifesto-english
Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialisms: Differences and relations. Existenz, 8(2), 26-32.
Greening, L., Greene, D. & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy Efficiency and Consumption—the Rebound Effect: A Survey. Energy Policy, 28(6/7), 389-401.
Grunwald, A. (2018). Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis: A critique of eco-modernism from a technology assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1854-1862.
Hickel, J. (2019). Degrowth: a theory of radical abundance. Real-world Economics Review, 87, 19, 54-68.
Isenhour, C. (2016). Unearthing human progress? Ecomodernism and contrasting definitions of technological progress in the Anthropocene. Economic Anthropology, 3(2), 315-328.
König, P., Wurster, S. & Siewert. M. (2022). Consumers are willing to pay a price for explainable, but not for green AI. Evidence from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Sage Journals.
Love, T. & Isenhour, C. (2016). Energy and Economy: Recognizing High-Energy Modernity as a Historical Period. Economic Anthropology. 3, 6-17.
Schaeffer, J. M. (2009). El fin de la excepción humana. Marbot Ediciones.
Weizsäcker, E. U., Hargroves, C. & Smith, M. (2009) Factor 5: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity. Earthscan.
White, L. (1959). The Evolution of Culture. Left Coast Press.